second question for our non-catholic brethern

[Randy_Carson]

It isn’t a handful of picked verses, but rather what you can gestalt from the whole of scripture, both old and new. From how God interacts with man (and the role of each Person of the Trinity) in the OT all the way to how He interacts with man in the NT, and the special relationship that the Holy Spirit has with and in believers. I don’t think anyone would question whether or not the Holy Spirit “could” infallibly guide believers on an individual basis, but rather “does” He, and I believe the whole of scripture testifies that He does. From conviction of sin, to the charisms and gifts, to knowing and revealing God and Who Jesus is, prayer, etc… etc… He is truly the Spirit of Truth.

The difference between us on this point kind of boils down to “which” individuals do you think are guided, not “If” individuals are guided. Satan gets blamed for a lot which is our own fallen doing. Pride, greed, selfishness, all of these things and more are human sin too and it gets in the way of our growth and our listening to God’s Spirit. Popes, kings, servants and slaves all still are human and still err.

We do agree there is indeed one Church, we just disagree on what it “looks” like and who composes it. My belief that I glean from scripture is that all who are saved, all who faithe on the true Christ are a part of His church regardless of label. There are members of His church in the RC, Orthodox, Baptist, Methodist, on and on…

As most know, Protestants do not interpret those verses to mean what RC doctrine teaches. Again, not to argue, just to clarify.

And to clarify the Catholic position, let me ask you this: When Jesus gave the “Sermon on the Mount”, how many people was he speaking to?

Thousands. On a hillside in Galilee in broad daylight.

And when Jesus said, “But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth” (John 16:13), how many people was he speaking to?

Eleven. In a small, upper room behind closed doors at night.

Clearly, this was a much more intimate setting for conveying special instructions to chosen men.

Now, consider this…Does it really make sense to say that the Holy Spirit leads ALL Christians “into all the truth” when the evidence suggests otherwise? What I mean is that a Baptist studies the Word of God and, led by the Spirit, determines that baptism does not regenerate and that infants should not be baptized. A Lutheran studies the Word of God and, led by the Spirit, determines that baptism does regenerate and that infants should be baptized. Is there a Baptist truth and a Lutheran truth? Or is it that one of these two believers is flat wrong. Yet, if you asked him, he would declare that he is led by the Holy Spirit.

From this, we might conclude that, yes, the Holy Spirit does lead individuals as you described above: “…From conviction of sin, to the charisms and gifts, to knowing and revealing God and Who Jesus is, prayer, etc”

However, when Catholics speak of the Holy Spirit leading the Church into all truth, we are speaking of infallibility, dogma, and doctrine, and these are much bigger things.

 

[Kliska]

Kliska, have you ever heard of the term “presbyter”. It is used in many translations in place of “elders”. The word “presbyter” is the root word for “priests”. If there was no difference between the priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial priesthood then why would presbyters (priests) have to be appointed? Wouldn’t they already be priests?

I have no problem with the positions laid out in scripture such as presbyter. However, the description of duties that I find in scripture (and there aren’t many) don’t match the duties and authorities the RC gives them. This is were we will run into many disagreements, because of the way tradition is viewed by RC’s vs. Protestants.

While I am certainly in favor of daily scripture reading, what good does it do us, really, if all we have to rely upon is our own judgment.

Do you know how much this makes a Protestant such as me cringe?? You are indwelt by the very Spirit of God reading the word of God. Trust me, it will do a lot of good as promised in the Book itself!

In other words, why would your interpretation of scripture be more valid than the one who is trying to sell you a line? Doesn’t it then become just a matter of opinion with two people disagreeing? That is why the Bible instructs us to go to the Church, the “pillar and foundation of truth” for our understanding.

The Truth that the church is supposed to be upholding is Jesus and His Gospel. If I don’t see a match in teaching with the truth in scripture, I shall reject the human trying to teach it in favor of God’s word. Scripture trumps man. Again it is up to me to work out my own salvation with fear and trembling. I can only do that via the Holy Spirit, given to me when I faithed on Jesus.

The fact that priests and bishops were appointed by the Apostles is evidence that there was, in fact, a ministerial priesthood. Not to mention that the priesthood is very much alive in the writings of the early Church fathers. So they were certainly not under the impression that the ministerial priesthood was done away with. These were men who were taught by the Apostles themselves, or by their students.

As I said, this is where we will hit a wall. RC tradition holds to things not found in scripture, as readily attested by the RC itself. The difference between us is that certain of those teachings of tradition in the RC I find to go against God-given scripture. I don’t see the role of an RC priest laid out in scripture in the slightest.

Paul and Barnabas were in a dispute with those who were teaching that Christians must be circumcised. They were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to bring the question to the Apostles and elders (priests). In other words, they did not decide on their own but brought the question to the leaders of the Church (the Apostles). Why? Because they had authority that Paul and Barnabas did not ascribe to themselves individually. The question was brought for the leaders of the Church to decide. This is the Magisterium.

Then why does the RC not recognize James as the head of the one organizational church at the time? It was James, not Peter, who was in charge. Rightly or wrongly, they followed his lead. I have not doubt there was an organizational aspect to the assembling of the ekklesia. I see that in scripture. What we differ is on their roles, authority, reach, etc…

Kliska, defending your position is not proselytizing. While I am sure that everyone respects your prudence and caution in proselytizing, don’t take it too far. I think everyone is aware that this is not your purpose in being here.

I’m a moderator at a large forum dedicated to discussion of the Rapture. As you can imagine we are mainly protestant Christians there. It would be hypocritical of me to act in a way here that I would not tolerate, say from an atheist, there. From my perspective we, you and I, are siblings in Christ, unlike that atheist, so I don’t want to step on toes nor anger anyone. I’m also more aware that more people are reading this than replying and I have to wish to even appear to be trying to get someone to start Protesting. In other words, I have my own rules that I feel I need to follow and don’t wish to be rude here at “your” forum.

Were I to go into depth on any of this, such as the areas I feel are contradicting, it would, by necessity, be seen as attacking the RC directly. I have no wish to do that.

God bless.

Ditto!

 

[Kliska]

Teaching by “action” is not considered infallible. Teaching by word is infallible only in extremely rare and specific circumstances.

Now, about infallibility:

1. The Pope is the final authority on matters of doctrine (cf. Mt. 16:18-19, Jn. 21:15-19)
2. God cannot allow His whole Church to fall into heresy (or else Hell will have prevailed).
3. Therefore, the Pope must be prevented from formally teaching error.

I understand this, but we disagree on the idea of teaching and responsibility. I see from scripture that even actions (or especially actions) are extraordinarily important when representing the gospel. We teach just as much by action as by word. I understand the teaching of infallibility, I just don’t agree with it. BTW, His whole church will never fall into heresy, on that we agree.

And to clarify the Catholic position, let me ask you this: When Jesus gave the “Sermon on the Mount”, how many people was he speaking to?

Thousands. On a hillside in Galilee in broad daylight.

And when Jesus said, “But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth” (John 16:13), how many people was he speaking to?

Eleven. In a small, upper room behind closed doors at night.

Clearly, this was a much more intimate setting for conveying special instructions to chosen men.

Your “clearly” here is a proof surrogate, and stands for your own opinion as the why. They were constantly traveling together and they had to have this Passover meal, you wouldn’t expect Him to be entertaining a crowd at this time. He did indeed institute the Lord’s Supper here, and they were to be the ones to instruct others, on that we have no quibble.

Now, consider this…Does it really make sense to say that the Holy Spirit leads ALL Christians “into all the truth” when the evidence suggests otherwise? What I mean is that a Baptist studies the Word of God and, led by the Spirit, determines that baptism does not regenerate and that infants should not be baptized. A Lutheran studies the Word of God and, led by the Spirit, determines that baptism does regenerate and that infants should be baptized. Is there a Baptist truth and a Lutheran truth? Or is it that one of these two believers is flat wrong. Yet, if you asked him, he would declare that he is led by the Holy Spirit.

But this is the same from the RC’s position as well. They too make that claim, yet agree with some and disagree with some. As to your first question, yes. It does make sense because to even be a true Christian the Holy Spirit has already guided them to the Truth. The fact that we disagree doesn’t negate the claim.

From this, we might conclude that, yes, the Holy Spirit does lead individuals as you described above: “…From conviction of sin, to the charisms and gifts, to knowing and revealing God and Who Jesus is, prayer, etc”

However, when Catholics speak of the Holy Spirit leading the Church into all truth, we are speaking of infallibility, dogma, and doctrine, and these are much bigger things.

But it trades one authority for another. It trades from God to man. If you are attempting to translate a verse you go to another man, who you believe is guided by the Spirit. I go to God Himself. It is a harder way to live in a sense, but it is what I see taught in scripture. I can only pray for myself that I humble myself enough to listen and respond to what is being taught to me via the Spirit. Again, that is why scripture plays such a key role.

Grace and Peace to you.

 

[PJM]

=SteveVH;11403840]Kliska, have you ever heard of the term “presbyter”. It is used in many translations in place of “elders”. The word “presbyter” is the root word for “priests”. If there was no difference between the priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial priesthood then why would presbyters (priests) have to be appointed? Wouldn’t they already be priests?

While I am certainly in favor of daily scripture reading, what good does it do us, really, if all we have to rely upon is our own judgment. In other words, why would your interpretation of scripture be more valid than the one who is trying to sell you a line? Doesn’t it then become just a matter of opinion with two people disagreeing? That is why the Bible instructs us to go to the Church, the “pillar and foundation of truth” for our understanding.

The fact that priests and bishops were appointed by the Apostles is evidence that there was, in fact, a ministerial priesthood. Not to mention that the priesthood is very much alive in the writings of the early Church fathers. So they were certainly not under the impression that the ministerial priesthood was done away with. These were men who were taught by the Apostles themselves, or by their students.

Paul and Barnabas were in a dispute with those who were teaching that Christians must be circumcised. They were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to bring the question to the Apostles and elders (priests). In other words, they did not decide on their own but brought the question to the leaders of the Church (the Apostles). Why? Because they had authority that Paul and Barnabas did not ascribe to themselves individually. The question was brought for the leaders of the Church to decide. This is the Magisterium.

Kliska, defending your position is not proselytizing. While I am sure that everyone respects your prudence and caution in proselytizing, don’t take it too far. I think everyone is aware that this is not your purpose in being here.

God bless.

NICELY done Steve:thumbsup:

 

[PJM]

=Randy Carson;11403927]And to clarify the Catholic position, let me ask you this: When Jesus gave the “Sermon on the Mount”, how many people was he speaking to?

Thousands. On a hillside in Galilee in broad daylight.

And when Jesus said, “But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth” (John 16:13), how many people was he speaking to?

Eleven. In a small, upper room behind closed doors at night.

Clearly, this was a much more intimate setting for conveying special instructions to chosen men.

Now, consider this…Does it really make sense to say that the Holy Spirit leads ALL Christians “into all the truth” when the evidence suggests otherwise? What I mean is that a Baptist studies the Word of God and, led by the Spirit, determines that baptism does not regenerate and that infants should not be baptized. A Lutheran studies the Word of God and, led by the Spirit, determines that baptism does regenerate and that infants should be baptized. Is there a Baptist truth and a Lutheran truth? Or is it that one of these two believers is flat wrong. Yet, if you asked him, he would declare that he is led by the Holy Spirit.

From this, we might conclude that, yes, the Holy Spirit does lead individuals as you described above: “…From conviction of sin, to the charisms and gifts, to knowing and revealing God and Who Jesus is, prayer, etc”

However, when Catholics speak of the Holy Spirit leading the Church into all truth, we are speaking of infallibility, dogma, and doctrine, and these are much bigger things.

Hi Randy!

Its been awhile

ALL that has to be done is quote these TWO passages:

Mark 16:14-15 "At length he [Christ] appeared to the eleven [Apostles] as they were at table: and he upbraided them with their incredulity and hardness of heart, because they did not believe them who had seen him after he was risen again. And he said to them: Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

And
Mt. 28:16-20 “And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.”

Dosen’t seen to be too much roomfor debate here:thumbsup:

God Bless you my friend!
Patrick

 

[jmcrae]

Right, I do understand that is the RC position, but we protestants tend not to believe that is true, or else most of us wouldn’t be protestants. lol Our position is that believers, including the pope and those comprising the magisterium, can err both in their teaching by action and teaching by word.

So then by what assurance do you know that what you have been taught about Jesus, nearly 2000 years after the fact, is even true?

Many Protestants will say, “It says so in the Bible.”

We didn’t have a Bible until the mid-400s AD., though, so if the Apostles and their followers were committing error after error for those 400 or so years that the Gospel was being handed on by word of mouth, then what we find in the Bible might not be true, either - they could have put books into it that don’t belong, or excluded books that we are supposed to be reading, and we would have no way of knowing. Just because the Pope said, “this is the Bible” doesn’t make it so, unless there is some guarantee that what the Pope says is most likely to be true.

 

[JonNC]

So then by what assurance do you know that what you have been taught about Jesus, nearly 2000 years after the fact, is even true?

Many Protestants will say, “It says so in the Bible.”

We didn’t have a Bible until the mid-400s AD., though, so if the Apostles and their followers were committing error after error for those 400 or so years that the Gospel was being handed on by word of mouth, then what we find in the Bible might not be true, either - they could have put books into it that don’t belong, or excluded books that we are supposed to be reading, and we would have no way of knowing. Just because the Pope said, “this is the Bible” doesn’t make it so, unless there is some guarantee that what the Pope says is most likely to be true.

The lack of a codified scriptural table of contents does not mean the early Church, pre-Nicea, didn’t have the scriptures. They had access to the apostolic writings. That, of course, did not mean there was universal agreement on the canon - there never has been!
Additionally, while there is no “guarantee”, there certainly is reason to have faith that the early Church got things pretty much right, not only on the canon of scripture, but also the teachings of the 7 ecumenical councils.

Jon

 

[jmcrae]

I understand this, but we disagree on the idea of teaching and responsibility. I see from scripture that even actions (or especially actions) are extraordinarily important when representing the gospel. We teach just as much by action as by word. I understand the teaching of infallibility, I just don’t agree with it. BTW, His whole church will never fall into heresy, on that we agree.

Which means that heretics are not true Christians, if you take this idea to its logical conclusion.

Your “clearly” here is a proof surrogate, and stands for your own opinion as the why. They were constantly traveling together and they had to have this Passover meal, you wouldn’t expect Him to be entertaining a crowd at this time. He did indeed institute the Lord’s Supper here, and they were to be the ones to instruct others, on that we have no quibble.

Does it occur to you to wonder why Jesus would have broken bread and fish with thousands of families, but Eucharist only wit the Eleven? Is it merely because they happened to be present at the time? I invite you to read all four Gospel accounts of the Last Supper, in their entirety, leaving nothing out.

But this is the same from the RC’s position as well. They too make that claim, yet agree with some and disagree with some. As to your first question, yes. It does make sense because to even be a true Christian the Holy Spirit has already guided them to the Truth. The fact that we disagree doesn’t negate the claim.

The Holy Spirit is guaranteed to Christ’s Church; not to individuals, as such. This doesn’t mean that individuals can’t call on the Spirit’s guidance - indeed, it is essential that one does this frequently - but always within the context of His Church, and not outside of it.

The Holy Spirit will never give a message to you that contradicts the teaching that He has given to His Church.

 

[jmcrae]

The lack of a codified scriptural table of contents does not mean the early Church, pre-Nicea, didn’t have the scriptures. They had access to the apostolic writings. That, of course, did not mean there was universal agreement on the canon - there never has been!
Additionally, while there is no “guarantee”, there certainly is reason to have faith that the early Church got things pretty much right, not only on the canon of scripture, but also the teachings of the 7 ecumenical councils.

Jon

And you would then have to believe that the Bishops, together with the Bishop of Rome, have authority to call Ecumenical Councils, and that the Holy Spirit guides not just one man, but whole crowds of them, into the truths of the Faith.

 

[JonNC]

And you would then have to believe that the Bishops, together with the Bishop of Rome, have authority to call Ecumenical Councils, and that the Holy Spirit guides not just one man, but whole crowds of them, into the truths of the Faith.

I certainly believe that the Spirit guided the bishops, including the Bishop of Rome, and the Bishop of Antioch, etc. when they held the seven ecumenical councils. There is no need to believe they were infallible, but they were correct.

Jon

 

[jmcrae]

I certainly believe that the Spirit guided the bishops, including the Bishop of Rome, and the Bishop of Antioch, etc. when they held the seven ecumenical councils. There is no need to believe they were infallible, but they were correct.

Jon

If you don’t think they were infallible (which simply means, guided by the Holy Spirit into all truth), then how can you know they were correct?

 

[JonNC]

If you don’t think they were infallible (which simply means, guided by the Holy Spirit into all truth), then how can you know they were correct?

No. It mean incapable of error. They were men. Bishops, yes. But men. And men are not infallible.
I certainly believe that the seven councils are/were and are authoritative for the whole Church, but the men were not infallible.
How do I know they were correct? First, their teachings are consistent with scripture, and since the councils were that of the whole Church, I trust they are correct.

Jon

 

[Kliska]

Which means that heretics are not true Christians, if you take this idea to its logical conclusion.

Depends on the heresy.

Does it occur to you to wonder why Jesus would have broken bread and fish with thousands of families, but Eucharist only wit the Eleven? Is it merely because they happened to be present at the time? I invite you to read all four Gospel accounts of the Last Supper, in their entirety, leaving nothing out.

I’ve read the entirety of the bible several times, the NT in its entirety even more, without leaving anything out. The Passover meal is very specific as to who, what, when, where, and why, it isn’t comparable to a public snack.

The Holy Spirit is guaranteed to Christ’s Church; not to individuals, as such.

So, you don’t believe that Christians are indwelt? You don’t believe the Holy Spirit guides you personally?

The Holy Spirit will never give a message to you that contradicts the teaching that He has given to His Church.

I agree, but don’t agree with you on who comprises His church.

 

[Kliska]

The lack of a codified scriptural table of contents does not mean the early Church, pre-Nicea, didn’t have the scriptures. They had access to the apostolic writings. That, of course, did not mean there was universal agreement on the canon - there never has been!
Additionally, while there is no “guarantee”, there certainly is reason to have faith that the early Church got things pretty much right, not only on the canon of scripture, but also the teachings of the 7 ecumenical councils.

Jon

 

[jmcrae]

No. It mean incapable of error. They were men. Bishops, yes. But men. And men are not infallible.
I certainly believe that the seven councils are/were and are authoritative for the whole Church, but the men were not infallible.
How do I know they were correct? First, their teachings are consistent with scripture, and since the councils were that of the whole Church, I trust they are correct.

Jon

Considering that it is upon the findings of the Councils that the Scriptures were chosen, I should hope they are aligned.

Do you believe that the writers of the Scriptures were infallible, or no? They, too, were mere men, and eight of them were Catholic Bishops.

 

[JonNC]

Considering that it is upon the findings of the Councils that the Scriptures were chosen, I should hope they are aligned.

Do you believe that the writers of the Scriptures were infallible, or no? They, too, were mere men, and eight of them were Catholic Bishops.

Do I believe that the apostolic era was different than what followed, that the apostles were unique in time? Yes. They probably couldn’t have told you they were bishops, as that’s a projection back in time, but I have faith that their inspired writings teach the faith as Christ wants It taught, even when we misunderstand.

Jon

 

[jmcrae]

Depends on the heresy.

I want to agree with that. My favourite heresies ought to be excluded, for example.

Unfortunately, I don’t think I am the one in charge.

I’ve read the entirety of the bible several times, the NT in its entirety even more, without leaving anything out. The Passover meal is very specific as to who, what, when, where, and why, it isn’t comparable to a public snack.

OH, good, we agree.

So, when Jesus ordained the 12 to be priests of the New Covenant ("Do this … " etc.), He wasn’t just making random conversation, right? :yup: :yup: :yup:

So, you don’t believe that Christians are indwelt? You don’t believe the Holy Spirit guides you personally?

Me, personally? No, other than to point me to the Church and let the Church be His voice, clearly heard. Otherwise, I could just make stuff up and say, “The Holy Spirit told me so,” kind of like how kids say, “My Mom said …” when really, she didn’t.

God understands the weaknesses of our human nature, which is why He established a Church for us.

I agree, but don’t agree with you on who comprises His church.

Christ only established one, so it’s essential to figure out who comprises His Church, so as to be among those counted as the Elect.

 

[jmcrae]

Do I believe that the apostolic era was different than what followed, that the apostles were unique in time? Yes. They probably couldn’t have told you they were bishops, as that’s a projection back in time, but I have faith that their inspired writings teach the faith as Christ wants It taught, even when we misunderstand.

Jon

What about Moses and David; were they infallible?

 

[JonNC]

What about Moses and David; were they infallible?

No.

Jon

 

[jmcrae]

No.

Jon

So the first half of the Old Testament is unreliable, then?